Background
Pasadena adopted a COVID-19 policy in August 2021 requiring employees to be vaccinated or obtain a medical or religious exemption. Employees with exemptions had to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear masks in shared spaces.
Jonathan Schmidt, a Pasadena Police Department forensic specialist, received a religious exemption but initially refused testing and masking. After unpaid administrative leave, he agreed to comply and returned to work. He sued the City and individual City employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that the requirements exposed his unvaccinated status and caused physical, emotional, reputational, and property-related harms.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims because the defendants were immune under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The City qualified as a covered person because it acted as a local-government program planner when it established the policy, and the individual defendants qualified because they participated in administering it.
The court held that the COVID-19 saliva testing and mask requirements were covered countermeasures under the federal COVID-19 PREP Act declaration and applicable emergency authorizations. Schmidt alleged that those measures directly caused physical, emotional, and property losses, satisfying the Act’s causation requirement. The court also affirmed denial of reconsideration, recusal-related challenges, and Rule 11 sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- PREP Act immunity can cover municipal COVID-19 testing and masking policies.
- The immunity analysis turns on the alleged loss and its causal relationship to a covered countermeasure, not the plaintiff’s legal theory.
- A plaintiff cannot obtain reconsideration based on evidence that was available before the earlier dismissal.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that PREP Act immunity can bar constitutional and state-law claims arising from local governments’ implementation of COVID-19 countermeasures. It also clarifies that alleged emotional, physical, and property losses tied to those measures may satisfy the statute’s broad causation language regardless of the cause of action asserted.